You simply said, you prefer the opinion of Person X over the opinion of Person Y, without explaining, why you do that. You might think it´s self evident, but it isn´t. I already mentioned that issue briefly hereIf it would´ve been the other way around and hypothetically Pele would´ve said you can´t improve by playing table football and the fan would´ve claimed the opposite, which opinion would you have followed then? If it would´ve now been the fan´s opinion, then your argument would be obsolete.If it would still be Pele´s instead, then you obviously didn´t give anything about the content of the opinion, but only about the person, who voiced it. So do you follow every opinion, that is voiced by a person involved in F1? Or is it just JYS? And if so, why? Because he´s a WDC? MSC for example once made clear, that he finds the idea of giving another pilot driving lessons quite silly. So whom should I believe?

You claim that the content of the opinion is the only thing that is valid, not the source. This is false. The knowledge, experience and reasoning that leads to the formulation of the opinion is what is important. This should not be confused with the logical fallacy of "appeal to authority" in which the line of reasoning is substituted. In your example, Pele is known to have been successful in his chosen endeavour - football. It is reasonable to assume that this success both depends upon and has helped reinforce a level of knowledge that the anonymous football fan has not demonstrated.

I´m afraid, it´s the other way around. Stewart´s success beyond F1 has little importance for what I said. How does that change the fact, that the vast majority of drivers (even very successful drivers, who obviously know what they are doing) can´t just keep up their performance level for every single type of car, especially if they completely differ?

It should be evident from your own statement that Stewart is not one of the set of vast majority of drivers. It therefore does not follow that his opinion on different driving forms can be discounted based on the lack of versatility of a set that he does not belong to.

Do you think JYS could´ve helped Raikkonen to improve in Rallye as well? That´s about as close to modern F1 cars as the cars 40 years ago were…not at all – not to speak of some garden variety road car, which was the tool JYS chose to “help” Magnussen.

I don't know whether he could have or not. I do believe that he is better placed to answer that question than I am.

Niki Lauda also once thought he had so much insight about driving modern F1 cars, which eventually tempted him to say, that even an ape could drive these modern cars (around 2001)…until he tried it himself and spun like 13 times or so.

What are you trying to prove with that statement? That Stewart is wrong? It doesn't prove that, simply that past experience does not mean he has to be right. It doesn't even prove that Lauda was wrong, as it does not even discount the possibility that an ape may be better at driving a 2001 F1 car that Lauda was on that day.

Yes I did. I said, it´s extremly unrealistic to expect that one can suddenly improve a driver, who competes since his childhood, for the demands of F1 by driving him around in an ordinary car one or two times. That has little to do with JYS himself.

No it isn't. One lesson can be enough to change a mindset, or a single bad habit. It is more likely the former in the case of a single coaching session, the benefits of which won't be visible immediately, but will lead to improvement later.

He constantly voices his opinion about the style of certain drivers and always makes clear, that he rates certain approaches over others. That´s why. And yes, that´s just an assumption, but it´s also quite secondary for my whole argument.

Which has no bearing on his actual coaching, merely on his preferences.What experience have you had of his coaching that leads you to claim that he can only ever teach one style? What leads you to believe that this style can be irrelevant or deleterious to the student's long-term performance?

Jackie was labelled an idiot at school because of his dyslexia, he left school with no self confidence and little education.

He then took up clay pigeon shooting where he won every major national shooting championship he competed in, missing the Olympic team by a single target.

After that took up motor racing where he won races in every class he competed in and went on to become a triple F1 world champion, set the record for most race wins (for 14 years) and narrowly missed an Indy 500 win on his first attempt.

He's been a very successful businessman after retirement as a driver, including commentating on the biggest race on the American calender for a decade and being a test driver for Ford, one of the worlds biggest car makers.

He started and helped run Paul Stewart Racing which dominated F3 and through Formula Vauxhall, F3 and F3000 offered an incredibly cohesive racing staircase to F1.

He started Stewart Grand Prix from scratch, became the first team to run without tobacco sponsorship, took a podium on his first year and a win in his third, a level of achievement that exceeded many multi-billion dollar manufacturer teams the following decade.

In short, the guy started life with nothing and has gone on to excel at every single thing he has ever attempted, he's earned his right to be taken seriously even if you disagree with him.

The point here is that simply Jackie Stewart never proved that he could improve someones driving - "you shall know them by their fruits". Stewart might well be inclined to offer his opinions, here, there and everywhere - yet the prove of the pudding is in the eating.

As Schumacher stated, giving another driver driving lessons is silly. Each driver has his unique inimitable style, and JYS takes a very strong position as to what he thinks is the "right" driving style. The true teacher does not want to imprint on the student his own style (which is in fact the egotistic teacher who just wants to produce carbon copies of himself) but seeks to help the trainee how to make the best of his own potentials.

As it stands, the great drivers find their own inimitable style, and, if they feel the need to, hire a coach of their liking on their own, without having to be told by a former 3xWDC.

Would you show me where he stated this? Or is this a bizarre paraphrasing of what he said in conversation when asked what advice he had for Kimi? In that conversation, I don't recall what he exactly said, but his response was to the effect that he didn't really have any as such and that even if he did, it likely wouldn't be taken. He made the point by asking the interviewer how likely is it that one leading pro golf player would take playing tips from another pro golf player.

This is very different indeed from a young F1 driver in his first full season, facing a one race ban after crashing many times in race starts being offered guidance by someone far more experienced.

Jackie was labelled an idiot at school because of his dyslexia, he left school with no self confidence and little education.

Which IMHO holds the key tp Stewart's behaviour - he is still compensating for being put down in his childhood and he still feels the need to assert himself, although he is undoubtedly one of the greats of F1.

Which IMHO holds the key tp Stewart's behaviour - he is still compensating for being put down in his childhood and he still feels the need to assert himself, although he is undoubtedly one of the greats of F1.

I agree.

I have a ton of respect for Jackie as a driver. What he accomplished from 1969 to 1973 was incredible. Not to mention to have to go into retirement without running what would have been his final race due to Cevert being killed at Watkins Glen is not an easy thing to have to see. Most greats who went into retirement at least had the benefit of not having something like that happen.

But, on stuff like driver coaching, and some other things, I think he's a bit out there.

He should have let go of what happened when he was a child by now as he has done so many things that show the dyslexia was hardly a drawback.

Which IMHO holds the key tp Stewart's behaviour - he is still compensating for being put down in his childhood and he still feels the need to assert himself, although he is undoubtedly one of the greats of F1.

Which IMHO holds the key tp Stewart's behaviour - he is still compensating for being put down in his childhood and he still feels the need to assert himself, although he is undoubtedly one of the greats of F1.

He should have let go of what happened when he was a child by now as he has done so many things that show the dyslexia was hardly a drawback.

I think it's a big assumption to make that he's still compensating for anything, after all Jackie isn't chasing journalists around shoving opinions down their throats, they are queuing up to ask for them and most of those opinions are perfectly logical and consistent.

I agree with you that it is not the same to coach an established driver like Kimi ("Don't disturb me, I know what I am doing!" - and Michael made his comment before Kimi's radio messages in Abu Dhabi....) or to coach a Pastor Maldonado, Romain Grosjean or Sergio Perez. Nonetheless I believe that if you try to coach them into adapting another driving style than the style that is natural to them, you are creating havoc for that driver. He will "lose his swing" to put it into golf language....

I agree with you that it is not the same to coach an established driver like Kimi ("Don't disturb me, I know what I am doing!" - and Michael made his comment before Kimi's radio messages in Abu Dhabi....) or to coach a Pastor Maldonado, Romain Grosjean or Sergio Perez. Nonetheless I believe that if you try to coach them into adapting another driving style than the style that is natural to them, you are creating havoc for that driver. He will "lose his swing" to put it into golf language....

Is this discussion about the merit behind the proposal that younger or struggling F1 drivers could benefit from coaching? Or is this about a specific style of coaching???? I have NEVER seen Stewart proposing how HE would specifically coach a particular driver. He has merely advocated driver coaching in F1 whenever a young driver having a lot of difficulties becomes topical. In fact, with regard to the particular driver he assisted the most, i.e., his last team mate, Cevert, he spoke of Cevert's own style with regard to how he dealt with some parts of a given track. So it seemed quite clear that back then, Cevert had his own way of driving while benefitting a lot, it would seem, from Stewart's input in his development as a driver.

I think we're assuming and reading way too much into his arguments. I don't know what motivates these sorts of assumptions either. If Stewart himself prefers and admires a particular style of driving, why are we to assume that he will impose it on Hamilton, Grosjean or whoever??? Hamilton's issues last year had nothing to do with his speed. It had everything to do with his mental application that got him involved in a lot of incidents. Compare and contrast his incident filled season in 2011 with Kimi's 2012 season. The difference has nothing to do with going around a track quickly. The same for Grosjean. He's very quick, but he is accident prone. There are many dimensions to a driver doing well in F1. Effective coaching addresses all aspects.

It's inconcievable that a new driver would not benefit in some way from the experience of another better established driver. Many workplaces employ mentor or buddy systems for just this reason - not just to deal with the details of the job they have been employed for but to help them build the right relationships in the right way within the organisation. F1 is a very different beast from the lower formulae because of the unique media pressures and constantly moving car designs and development pace. Stewart has not said that he wants to change the way a driver approaches each corner.

"Getting in and out of the track wasn't fun,” Stewart said. “It's not finished, you see, so they haven't got their access roads. In fact, I am going to write to them about that because I don't want them running away thinking they got away with it. They didn't.”Off-site parking and a system of shuttle buses was available to the 265,499 spectators who visited the track over the race weekend. This minimized traffic jams but led to the somewhat long wait times getting in and out.That said, COTA boss Bobby Epstein pointed out recently that “normal traffic in Austin is worse than what there was on race day.” Local authorities seem to agree.Race traffic was so trouble-free that the Travis County government decided earlier this month not to proceed with a planned road-widening project which was expected to cost between $9 million and $10 million. Completed improvements to roads around the circuit have already cost a reported $5.6 million.

I am amazed that nobody from FOM or indeed Bernie have voiced forth this issue. Apparently COTA organized it well to a) get so many visitors and b) have a functioning shuttle bus system in place.

In comes Stewart demanding a road widening project that costs between $9 million and $10 million, so he can get to/fro the circuit a little bit faster. The COTA organizers won't get away with this.

Is this discussion about the merit behind the proposal that younger or struggling F1 drivers could benefit from coaching? Or is this about a specific style of coaching???? I have NEVER seen Stewart proposing how HE would specifically coach a particular driver. He has merely advocated driver coaching in F1 whenever a young driver having a lot of difficulties becomes topical. In fact, with regard to the particular driver he assisted the most, i.e., his last team mate, Cevert, he spoke of Cevert's own style with regard to how he dealt with some parts of a given track. So it seemed quite clear that back then, Cevert had his own way of driving while benefitting a lot, it would seem, from Stewart's input in his development as a driver.

I think we're assuming and reading way too much into his arguments. I don't know what motivates these sorts of assumptions either. If Stewart himself prefers and admires a particular style of driving, why are we to assume that he will impose it on Hamilton, Grosjean or whoever??? Hamilton's issues last year had nothing to do with his speed. It had everything to do with his mental application that got him involved in a lot of incidents. Compare and contrast his incident filled season in 2011 with Kimi's 2012 season. The difference has nothing to do with going around a track quickly. The same for Grosjean. He's very quick, but he is accident prone. There are many dimensions to a driver doing well in F1. Effective coaching addresses all aspects.

That is a very good point and well thought out post. I fully agree. I can't remember where I read or saw it, but Cevert mentioned on occasion that Stewart's mentoring influenced his driving style greatly. Here's an example of teacher and pupil:

Seeing that I haven't stopped by here for a while to harvest names for the ignore list I'll just say this;
Were any of his detractors to have accomplished .001% of what JYS has then your opinions will have some credence.
Till then... Have at that keyboard next to your bed at mums house.

Seeing that I haven't stopped by here for a while to harvest names for the ignore list I'll just say this;Were any of his detractors to have accomplished .001% of what JYS has then your opinions will have some credence. Till then... Have at that keyboard next to your bed at mums house.

Nothing to do with the whiny Spanish press attempting to get an already declared result overturned then?

Two separate things.

Jackie Stewart has been critical of Jean Todt for a while now. He thinks that Todt is too withdrawn and does not step enough into the public limelight. Possibly characters like Stewart himself, who constantly seeks the limelight, would make a better FIA president in Sir Jackie's reckoning...

Jackie Stewart has been critical of Jean Todt for a while now. He thinks that Todt is too withdrawn and does not step enough into the public limelight. Possibly characters like Stewart himself, who constantly seeks the limelight, would make a better FIA president in Sir Jackie's reckoning...

I suspect Sir Jackie's view (like mine) is that Todt should have stepped in right at the beginning of the row and made a public declaration backing the stewards' decision. By not doing so - and given his previous long association with Ferrari - Todt and the FIA were perceived by some as weak and indecisive.

I suspect Sir Jackie's view (like mine) is that Todt should have stepped in right at the beginning of the row and made a public declaration backing the stewards' decision. By not doing so - and given his previous long association with Ferrari - Todt and the FIA were perceived by some as weak and indecisive.

By whom exactly? I can´t remember any public criticism about Todt in that matter until now.

You're projecting. He may very well think that, but he has not said that.

I am assuming. Stewart wants a more outspoken FIA president - Todt is too withdrawn for his likings. Sir Jackie wants a more outspoken style, and since he himself is a very outspoken man, it could well be that his ideal FIA president would be a man in the vein of Stewart himself.

I did not assume, however, that Jackie himself wants to be FIA president - neither did JYS say that. Also he naturally did not say that he liked Max Mosley's outspoken style more - or would he?

I suspect Sir Jackie's view (like mine) is that Todt should have stepped in right at the beginning of the row and made a public declaration backing the stewards' decision. By not doing so - and given his previous long association with Ferrari - Todt and the FIA were perceived by some as weak and indecisive.

That could very well be the case, although I heard Stewart's criticism of Todt already earlier.

- Jackie Stewart's criticism is persuasive but he can offer more than words...

That final sentence has much truth in it - while JYS is critical of all and sundry (and which is why I called this thread "Stewart must channel his frustration") it is another thing to actually do constructive action.

He would be in a position to do so (and has done so in the past, thanks to him safety in motorsport has taken birth!

There was an offer to Stewart in 2009 to run for FIA presidency, at least Sir Jackie said so. And while JYS was critical of the past FIA administration (Mosley) as well as of the current (Todt), he could have remedied things by becoming FIA president himself and changing things for the better. Instead, for years now he just goes on moaning about this and that.

I suspect Sir Jackie's view (like mine) is that Todt should have stepped in right at the beginning of the row and made a public declaration backing the stewards' decision. By not doing so - and given his previous long association with Ferrari - Todt and the FIA were perceived by some as weak and indecisive.

Why, FiA doesn't react to silly articles in the (Spanish) press?Only when FiA received a letter from Ferrari, seeking clarification on Sebastian Vettel's overtaking manoeuvre, did FiA have to act and it did.

Sir Jackie's criticism is unfounded but as with everything the man always seems to think he knows better.Thankfully the FiA have continued the policy of not taking Sir Jackie very seriously, they just don't call him names anymore ;)

I think JYS misunderstood events in this case. It was a fan video and fan protests to Ferrari that prompted Ferrari's querying of the legality of Vettel's overtake. I strongly suspect that Fernando had a lot to do with it too. This had nothing to do with the FIA. The FIA was quite happy with the outcome and very easily defended the query on Ferrari's part. There was simply no case. If there's anyone to criticise, it's Ferrari.

As to Todt's style, I tend to agree with JYS that he's been quiet, but then again, he's taken over the presidency on the immediate background of the then outgoing president being way too in the limelight, controversies/scandals and all. F1 needs some time of stability without the constant bickering between President and Teams. The constant tensions were not boding well for the sport IMO, though the press loved it.

Nothing at all wrong with his statements. It's just an opinion. I'm happy with his involvement. We need more of that sort of thing.

Jackie could sing the Yellow Pages in Swahili and still be more pertinent than 99.99% of the blather out there.

You seem to like lecturing people in a patronizing manner. No wonder you defend JYS.

But maybe you should accept, that some people don´t agree with everything a famous person said, just because of his former personal achievements. Would be quite sad, if i had to take everything as gospel, that e.g. Diego Maradona wants us enlighten with.

My problem with this thread is, that it seems to be kicked into new life everytime in such a way, that Jacky Stewart has to be defended. With my former username, Jerome, I already posted in this thread that the thread opener - I thought by accident, but I start to fear otherwhise - that the title of this thread is highly misleading. An interview in which Stewarts was hugely sympathetic and supportive about Lewis Hamilton, was twisted round to present that Stewart criticised Hamilton 'He must andsoforth'... In other words: Stewart said something which was positive, supporting, but it was presented as if he was again the 'patronising, arrogant' Stewart some posters here are trying to make him. It doesn't matter that the original article, that kickstarted the whole thread, was nothing that the topic starter suggested it was...

And that was only the start. It goes on and on and on. Take the title of the link: 'Stewart gets himself in another meddle,' which refers to this article ofcourse: http://www.yallaf1.c...rt-is-organised. That misleading way to link the article is not a coincidence, that is again a conscious effort to keep this thread (t)rolling in an negative way. In the end, for most superficial fans on this website, the goal will be achieved: 'Stewart... wasn't he that fantastic driver who went a bit gaga with old age, shooting his mouth of with crazy opinons?'

It is about discussion, as you will see from the posts and sources into which some people put quite some effort.

Look no further than post 774 - Jackie, as we all know him is highly competent and was offered e.g. to run for FIA presidency. What better position to turn his inspirations into a reality, and to stop the things that he feels the need to criticize.

Also, if you google "Jackie Stewart critical" you will find a whole number of issues - over the years Jackie seems to have been critical of all and sundry. Even if you take Niki Lauda, another outspoken former WDC you will never find even a close number of critical utterings. In a way Jackie himself is trolling the sport, while he has a lot of positive content to offer (look no further than the fantastic "Motorsport Reader's evening with Jackie Stewart" link here which all of us have enjoyed deeply - and those who haven't heard it yet should waste no time hearing it!)

So it's a little bit up to Jackie himself - if he criticizes his way through the years (in my observation that trend started in 2001 - and it does seem sometimes - to me, at least - that he offers that constant criticism possibly out of a deep-rooted frustration) he and his fans must be prepared that he gets some flak back - especially if he offers only words and no deeds (and he is one of the few in a position to offer deeds).

You seem to like lecturing people in a patronizing manner. No wonder you defend JYS.

But maybe you should accept, that some people don´t agree with everything a famous person said, just because of his former personal achievements. Would be quite sad, if i had to take everything as gospel, that e.g. Diego Maradona wants us enlighten with.

And people say I apportion spam with stories about Hedy Lamarr and such..sheesh!Jackie could sing the Yellow Pages in Swahili and still be more pertinent than 99.99% of the blather out there.Jp

Or to quote Hedley Lamar from Mel Brook's Balzing Saddles[" "Hedley Lamarr: My mind is a raging torrent, flooded with rivulets of thought cascading into a waterfall of creative alternatives." "Taggart: God darnit, Mr. Lamarr, you use your tongue prettier than a twenty dollar whore. !

Do I ?Or did you just take it as such ?

'Fame' as you call it, has nothing to do with it.Additionally, your comparison of Diego and Jackie would be best used as a juxtaposition.Jp

As a resident in Sir Stewart's home town I feel the need to describe this thread as it would be locally...

It is a pile of mince

LJ Joined: Jun 2011

JP Joined: Mar 2000

JP wins over newbie

Guys, you are not adding anything to the discussion - this has nothing to do with JYS. Neither with his superb exploits as a driver or team boss nor with his need to offer critical opinions on nearly everything.

It is about discussion, as you will see from the posts and sources into which some people put quite some effort.

Look no further than post 774 - Jackie, as we all know him is highly competent and was offered e.g. to run for FIA presidency. What better position to turn his inspirations into a reality, and to stop the things that he feels the need to criticize.

Also, if you google "Jackie Stewart critical" you will find a whole number of issues - over the years Jackie seems to have been critical of all and sundry. Even if you take Niki Lauda, another outspoken former WDC you will never find even a close number of critical utterings. In a way Jackie himself is trolling the sport, while he has a lot of positive content to offer (look no further than the fantastic "Motorsport Reader's evening with Jackie Stewart" link here which all of us have enjoyed deeply - and those who haven't heard it yet should waste no time hearing it!)

So it's a little bit up to Jackie himself - if he criticizes his way through the years (in my observation that trend started in 2001 - and it does seem sometimes - to me, at least - that he offers that constant criticism possibly out of a deep-rooted frustration) he and his fans must be prepared that he gets some flak back - especially if he offers only words and no deeds (and he is one of the few in a position to offer deeds).

Like yours, only my humble opinion of course.

Yes people put - and keep putting - quite some effort into this thread. That's exactly what's bothering me. The premise of the thread itself - the title and the further posts like 'Stewart...again' leaves no room for anything else than attacking or defending Jacky Stewart. It's ad hominem all the time, instead of ad topic. It was the same with Max Mosley, actually. But I had less trouble with that because he himself was firing ad hominem attacks all the time. If you think certain idea's of Stewart should be debated, debate them. For example: 'Stewart thinks McLaren was unfairly treaten by Mosley. I think that's tosh. What do you think?' Instead of: 'Stewart is an idiot, in my opinion. What do you think?'